I have terminated Dr. Tom Stevens as my Campaign Manager because of the direction my campaign was going, which was different from the direction I have intended. The material on bestiality published and emphasized by Dr. Stevens has nothing to do with my campaign, and I strongly dissociate myself from issues being promoted about bestiality. As I have repeatedly stated in my speeches and on my campaign website, my focus is job-creation through specific deregulation of small businesses and of vocational and higher education. I apologize for the unwarranted detour that has occurred, and will make sure that no other detours occur in my campaign.

I want to point out that this 2012 election campaign from the voters’ standpoint is going to be about jobs, jobs, jobs, and that there is not a single candidate from any party who has offered any specific, workable ideas for job creation other than me. I would hope that the Libertarian Party is going to capitalize on its great strength in this election, which is that through Libertarian ideals (of deregulating small business in certain specific areas) we can cure the nation’s job problem.

The post also contains a response by Stevens. In his comments, Stevens accuses Person of “doing what any sleazy politician would do and that is to blame someone else for his situation. … By throwing his friend to the wolves in an attempt to revive his campaign, he has now sacrificed his soul at the alter of his ego. I feel sorry for him.”

Stevens is currently the 2012 presidential nominee of the Objectivist Party, which had ballot status in two states last cycle.

I’m glad Person has come to his senses and recognized that his friend and campaign manager was manipulating and humiliating him. However, I think he should consider why it was that he was unable to spot the deception for over a month, despite other people (i.e., myself) telling him about it. I think the problem is not just that Person is too trusting, but that he is too inexperienced in Libertarian philosophy to know when he’s being fed a load of hooey.

In my interactions with him, I found Person to be a nice man with genuine libertarian instincts. His career achievements are impressive and he has a decades-long affinity with libertarian beliefs. However, he is new to the LP and its philosophy. It’s my belief that third-party presidential candidates need to be well-versed in the philosophy of the party they’re representing, since the entire job of the presidential candidate is to promote that philosophy outside the party. Person will undoubtedly become a fine Libertarian, but he is just not there yet.

I think the best thing for him to do at this point would be to withdraw from the race, but to stay active in the party. He should seek out some well-meaning and experienced Libertarians and engage in discussion with them until he hones his philosophy. He might then be a great LP candidate in a few years.

Regardless, I wish him well as he attempts to put his campaign back together.

I agree with your assessment of him. My interactions with him left me with the impression that he is genuine, even when he is expressing positions that are slightly off the main-stream of either libertarian politics or politics in general. That does not mean I agree with all of his positions (especially those that are very un-libertarian), but he does appear genuine.

But again, too little, too late. His campaign is over. As far as running in a few years goes…isn’t he in his 70s?

Very sorry… it’s an old phrase that came to mind when I read this ridiculous story and I simply couldn’t resist.

How far we have sunk in this country when we now have political scandals relating to the subject of sex with animals. At least Monica Lewinsky was human. I would ask, “what’s next?” but I don’t want to know.

Stewart @2, I don’t think he’d necessarily be a presidential candidate in a few years, but he could be a great candidate for Congress or NY statewide office (again). He does have an enviable background for a Libertarian candidate.

What is the deal with this Tom Stevens guy and why was he managing a campaign while criticizing the candidate and releasing/focusing on such bizarre issues? The whole campaign just seemed so strange from the start.

troll, n. One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

For the Stevens sub-species, replace “posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board” with “associates himself with, and promulgates communications purporting to relate to or emit from, a political campaign or organization …”

This article quotes Liberty Lion with respect to the News Release Carl Person sent out terminating me as Campaign Manager but you do not provide a link to that Blog Article or my response to Carl’s action.

In addition, the title of this article is misleading. Nowhere in Carl’s News Release do I see him apologizing for the comments he made with respect to his support for the legalization of bestiality. Perhaps you can point me to his retraction because I cannot find it.

Dr. Stevens, read the post again — there is a link to your blog article in the very first paragraph. I wouldn’t include people’s words without linking to them.

As for the apology, try this on for size: “The material on bestiality published and emphasized by Dr. Stevens has nothing to do with my campaign, and I strongly dissociate myself from issues being promoted about bestiality. … I apologize for the unwarranted detour that has occurred. …” Good enough for me.

Too late for ole Carl Person. Flip him over and add some seasoning, he’s well done. Can you imagine the drama at the national convention if he stays in. Stevens torpedoed this deal for Mr. Person. Carl should run for US Congress or even state rep. Wherever Stevens goes, there is chaos. I remember the race for Governor in New York. NYLP just missed getting ballot retention via actual votes.

“The material on bestiality published and emphasized by Dr. Stevens has nothing to do with my campaign, and I strongly dissociate myself from issues being promoted about bestiality. … I apologize for the unwarranted detour that has occurred. …”

Carl says his position that bestiality is a victimless crime had nothing to do with his campaign. Fair enough. I advised him NOT to speak about it in debates and NOT to place his position on his website. However some might consider his position on this issue to be relevant to his campaign for the LP Presidential Nomination.

He apologizes for the unwarranted detour. Not for his position but for the detour.

Finally, he “strongly dissociates” himself from “issues being promoted about bestiality”. Is it the “issues being promoted” he dissociates himself from or from his own positions stated and re-stated with respect to the issue? And what “issues” are being promoted? Endorsements by Zoosexuals? His position on the issue?

I do not see a retraction of his stand on the issue. I do not see an apology for his stand on the issue. (the apology was for the “unwarranted detour”). I do not see Carl taking back his position on the issue.

Carl spoke. Carl clarified and Carl became concerned when he faced negative feedback. That’s what I see.

Here’s what I see: a former campaign manager and former friend who’s upset that he can’t humiliate his former candidate and friend in public any more.

I stand by my interpretation (and so does my boss, who graciously stopped by to comment in this thread). If Carl wants a retraction, he’s welcome to ask for it and I will happily provide it. Since you are no longer involved in the campaign, you have no standing to interpret Carl’s words, and I won’t be issuing a retraction on your say-so. Have a nice day.

I am sure Carl will love the way you wrote and titled this article. You see his News Release as a retraction and as an apology for his position in favor of the decriminalization of bestiality. I don’t see that in his statement. You do. Everyone is free to make up their own mind on the issue.

The only thing I have no standing for is to speak on Carl’s behalf or to seek a retraction on his behalf. I also sought no such retraction.

I do see the link now on the top of the article. Thanks for telling me to “Have a nice day”. I wish you one as well.

Final Note: As Carl’s Campaign Manager, I was restrained in my criticism of his anti-libertarian stands issues. There is a reason why the Libertarian Party of Queens County and the Manhattan LP have not endorsed his candidacy. There are reasons why he served as a State Representative in New York for two months before being replaced. There is a reason why the Objectivist Party was planning to terminate his membership. Now I am free to speak without constraint.

Mr. Person.
As some country folks say, “The horse is out of the barn”. Or, was that a sheep. LOL. Go enjoy your life. Or do you want to spend the rest of it, defending your friendships with farm animals?

Gene @ #37 – you apparently have become such a collectivist that if any individual who is or was a member of the Libertarian Party does something objectionable, then ALL Libertarian Party members share that objectionable trait.

Libertarians believe in personal responsibility. And it is not possible for any organization to police the thoughts and statements of all its members.

Gene @ 38: I appreciate your input, but I hate to remind everyone that perception is reality. Call it collectivism if you wish, but the *perception* by a significant amount of non-Libertarians (and even among some small “l” libertarians) is that the LP acts as a magnet for disagreeable or objectionable behavior. That is not a judgment call on my part — I’m merely pointing out the reality of the situation.

There is such as thing as self-policing and I have been an advocate for that when I used to believe in partisan libertarian political action. The simple fact is that many (not all) Libertarians I knew and associated with either excused away or defended objectionable behavior, such as advocacy of white power/nationalism or pedophilia. I have personally witnessed convention floor debates over pedophilia and I have witnessed Libertarians support groups like the Liberty Lobby. Granted, in most instances, some action was taken to address these problems, but only after the issue was pressed, NOT proactively. In the instance of the LPCA “issue” of a couple years ago and of the 1994 LPCA convention where peddlers of The Spotlight were removed, Libertarians could have been proactive and quietly dealt with these issues before they became much larger issues. The 1994 LPCA convention organizer could have denied The Spotlight from being sold on site, but didn’t. The LPCA ExCom could have strongly dealt with the “issue” of 2009, but didn’t. Now, for the umpteenth time, the LP has found itself in yet another PR embarrassment.

Since I am now about 98% out of the LP loop, I only hear about these things on occasion from former LP associates who think I may be interested in the latest Keystone Kops goings-on. Just when I thought I heard it all, along comes stories like this…

I do find the charge of collectivism amusing, considering many in the LP engage in collectivist smearing of all government employees as “The Government”. When people angrily point to events such as the Waco tragedy and blame it on “The Government”, they are also blaming the local post office worker, the park ranger, maintenance workers, and any number of faceless people who happen to derive their income as employees of the State — “The Government”, without any distinction. This is not to defend The State — far from it. I’m just pointing out a double standard. Much like the slogan “I’m The NRA”, individual Libertarians, especially those in activist roles, represent the LP. It is not the organization or ALL Libertarians I have a problem with. Rather, it’s the CULTURE within the LP which is rotten. When I say “all of you”, I mean, “all of you”, because each of you contribute the good and the bad which constitutes the LP’s internal culture. For goodness sakes! I know women who feel uncomfortable, creeped out and intimidated by men in the LP. Result? To some, the LP appears to be a haven for boorish, sex-starved middle aged males. Why do some of them point that out? So Libertarians can change the culture of the LP to one that is non threatening and inclusive. When I make a critical remark, it’s aimed at every single one of you as a reminder that no matter how much you want the embarrassing stuff to go away, it won’t do so on it’s own.

The LP, with all of its numerous faults, is still an ally in liberty and I welcome the LP in the struggle for liberty. In that aspect I have some level of interest in how the LP conducts its affairs. Not that my opinion is worth much (it’s not), but it *is* one voice among many others who share the same concerns. I’ve said what I needed to in this thread and will say no more. Ultimately, it’s up to you all how the LP conducts its affairs. Have at it.

The Governing Board of the Objectivist Party has voted unanimously to terminate the membership of Carl Person for exhibiting Socialist Tendencies in his campaign to obtain the Libertarian Party’s Presidential Nomination in 2012 and exposing his past Green Party affiliations and stands on issues:

If past events are any indication, “the Governing Board of the Objectivist Party” probably consists of 1) Tom Stevens and 2) some random number of felt-tip eyes and smiley-mouths drawn on his fingertips.

Carl Person, a candidate for the Libertarian Party’s Presidential Nomination, issued his Prosperity Plan on October 24, 2011 calling for small cities to appoint “Town Attorney Generals”.

This article explains his philosophy and viewpoints on how these Town Attorney Generals can sue corporations to obtain “Corporate Clawbacks” to finance Free Healthcare, Free Dental Care and Free Prescription Drugs for all citizens.

If you disagreed with the candidate’s positions you should have just resigned instead of (seeming to) intentionally sabotage him. Since you had to be forced out instead of leaving gracefully and voluntarily I guess you must not have disagreed all that much.

I must clarify. Carl Person was also a friend. I worked for his Paralegal Institute in 1989-1990 and he was a member of the Libertarian Party of Queens County (of which I am Political Director) so I felt a special obligation to stick with him and provide advice even if he didn’t take it.

I also did not need to be “forced out”. In fact, I told Carl if he ever did not want me to continue as his Campaign Manager for any reason, I would resign without question or delay.

However, for political advantage, he fired me
without notice so it could appear I was responsible for his having taken the position that bestiality is a victimless crime, when the facts are that he raised the issue, clarified it and told me he would take the stand again if he had the opportunity to do so.